Posted
by
timothy
on Thursday June 26, 2008 @12:37PM
from the founders'-rolling-speed-reduced-slightly dept.

Now.Imperfect writes "In its last day of session, the Supreme Court has definitively clarified the meaning of the Second Amendment. The confusion is whether the Second Amendment allows merely for the existence of a state militia, or the private ownership of guns. This ruling is in response to a case regarding the 32-year-old Washington DC ban on guns." This is one of the most-watched Supreme Court cases in a long time, and Wikipedia's page on the case gives a good overview; the actual text of the decision (PDF) runs to 157 pages, but the holding is summarized in the first three. There are certainly other aspects of the Second Amendment left unaddressed, however, so you can't go straight to the store for a recently made automatic rifle.

"I think the argument is that when the armed crook comes to rob a citizen, that citizen will be armed too. And, since we have already established that the crook is a crook, he or she(ok, he) is likely to be armed regardless of if its legal or not."

That's the crux of the problem with gun laws in general. Criminals, by definition aren't interested in following the law, therefore, the stringent gun laws only hamper law abiding citizens.

IIRC, that was from the New England Journal of Medicine and it classified "family" as anybody you knew, including rival gang members.

When it came out a very liberal columnist in Playboy (Scheer?) was screaming anti-gun with it as evidence. The next issue was a huge mea culpa as he exposed the lies of the study that had apparently been pointed out to him.

Now we get to hear from a bunch of people who normally bitch about the government taking away individual freedoms try to justify their hypocrisy while they argue for gun control, and how the supreme court wasn't thinking of the children...

Indeed. We will also hear those for whom the Second is the only Amendment that matters telling us that torture, wiretapping, and disregard of habeas corpus telling us that it's okay as long as we get to keep our guns. IOW, there's plenty of hypocrisy to go around here, spread across the political spectrum.

And then what ?
Attack the nearest army base ? Or the treasury office ? Or the FBI bureau ? March on the white house to storm it ? Or what exactly ?
What is the point of those "freedom protecting" guns all the US people are supposedly so fond of ?

The purpose of the Second Amendment is for people to be able to defend themselves from their own government, not to attack their own government. The Second Amendment is the amendment of last resort. Trust me, if you had the military start to invade Small Town USA, you'd probably have plenty of people in the surrounding area exercising their right to keep and bear arms.

And, by that point, it'd be too late anyway. No matter how many guns you've got, the US military has more, not to mention the training and tactics to deploy them effectively. The best you'd be able to hope for is a Iraq style guerrilla insurgency, but even that wouldn't work, since the troops you're fighting against would be from a similar cultural background as you.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I seem to remember reading about a similar situation about 230 or so years ago that was fairly successful.

1. a musket was the best any army had. Civilians even had the equivalent of sniper rifles, see the minutemen.

Heck, you could make a musket and ammo in a local smithy or in your shed. It was a simple weapon where the tolerances were _extremely_ generous.

Artillery? Sure. Anyone who could make a bell, could make a cannon just as good as the royal armourers in England.

Shock troops? That still meant cavalry. Any rancher who had a horse could be the equivalent of what today is a tank or a gunship.

2. Tactics were also more... lacklustre. Armies were trained to just march to 100 yards of each other and stand tall, shooting volley after volley at each other, until one looks like it's breaking. Then the other would do a cavalry charge or bayonet charge to finish it all. The only difference between a fully trained army and a militia was that the army was trained to stay in formation longer.

The Brits essentially did little more than pout when the rifled guns of the minutemen just sniped their officers in the first volley.

Modern infantry tactics and indeed combined arms tactics are a bit more effective than that. A militia whose claim to glory is shooting a few vermin now and then, and a bit of penis-size posturing at the shooting range on sundays, would sustain heavier casualties even if they had the exact same weapons the army had.

3. While willy-waving about the independence war is good and fine, let's not forget that it was mostly won because there was an ocean in between _and_ because France went bankrupt supporting you guys against the Brits. The whole French navy, as much as there was of it, fought hard to make that ocean a bigger problem for the Brits than it already was. And there was military help on the ground too from the French and from the northern indian tribes they had worked hard to befriend.

In fact, if you look at the French Revolution, soon there after, and at the king getting beheaded, that's what started it: eventually the peasants and burgeoisie had enough of paying the debt for a war that wasn't theirs and gained nothing for them. But I digress.

At any rate, you fought, only a fraction of the English army and you didn't fight it alone. And yeah, you repeated it a few years later, when the Brits were busy with Napoleon and made little more than a token show of force to keep you from trading with Napoleon. And gave up as soon as Napoleon was no longer a threat, and they had no more reason to keep you from trading with France.

Don't let it go to your head. Just a few rag-tag militias against the full might of England, _could_ have went a lot differently.

Why yes I can. The first the comes to mind is the American Revolution, maybe you have heard about it. The second in more recent times was the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. Maybe you have heard about that as well. Sorry to burst your bubble but it has happened on several occasions throughout history.

That is only one example.For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.

The purpose of guns is not to protect your freedoms. That's what voting is for. The guns are to protect your person. To make the soldiers think twice before coming in. If you debate that look at the third amendment.

Essentially, the idea is that a democracy puts power in the hands of the people. Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.

In short, yes, the point of all those guns is so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders. Whenever they want.

For instance, did you know that according to the supreme court there is NO expectation of protection against crimes by the police? They are there to maintain the peace, not to protect you. That's your responsibility.

Yep, but there is no formal constitution-level document declaring that a police force must exist. That, too is Our responsibility. That's big "O" our, as in "we, the people". The statutes that create the police forces across the nation are not written in stone and may be changed. We, the people, created them and we must pass rules to control them.

The purpose of guns is not to protect your freedoms. That's what voting is for. The guns are to protect your person. To make the soldiers think twice before coming in. If you debate that look at the third amendment.

Right again. But honestly, unless you have a whole lot of people with a whole bunch of fire power neither the police nor the military will be stopped. They might be slowed but not stopped. And the type of firepower that would be needed to stop even a squad of government solders tends to attract the attention of the FBI who frown on that sort of thing, for obvious reasons. So although you are technically correct, the point is moot.

Essentially, the idea is that a democracy puts power in the hands of the people. Ask any political scientist about the political uses of lethal force. To have political power one must ultimately be willing to wield lethal force.
In short, yes, the point of all those guns is so crowds of angry citizens can overthrow their corrupt leaders. Whenever they want.

Couldn't agree more. And going on you can say the point of power is to maintain the power of those who have it. Any type of power. Let's be honest here, the point of all those bullets and bombs the government has is to maintain and increase their power. Those can and have been used on citizens. It used to be that the military would be called in to "put down riots" or "maintain the peace". Now its to "stop terroists". It amounts to the same thing; the people in power stopping the people without power from taking power away.

In short, your Second amendment rights are meaningless except to allow you to hold a weapon. These days that just makes you fair game.

All those places are a long way from home. The rebels know the land while the US army doesn't, and the rebels have massive popular support while the US army doesn't.

It's a very different scenario from a hypothetical military action within the USA, in which it's very likely that the majority of the population would believe that the rebels were traitors. The best you could hope for would be for a significant portion of the army to refuse to take up arms against fellow Americans. However, I doubt they'd go so far as to join the rebels and take up arms against their own military comrades either.

What is the point of those "freedom protecting" guns all the US people are supposedly so fond of ?

Yes. This isn't something you do casually. It's for when things are so bad you're willing to die to make them better and so are most of the people around you. The people who wrote this amendment had done exactly that. They fought in a war. They were willing to get themselves killed to be free of British rule.

Don't think George W. Bush and a few hundred terror suspects at Gitmo. Think Stalin's gulags and Hitler's gestapo. That is what the second amendment is there to prevent.

Fat suburbanite with a 9mm is not stopping a mechanized division. Ever. 1 million fat guys wont either. The idea that some basic firearms will over-throw a tyranic government is a historical fantasy

I used to agree with you. Then I read an interesting analysis of how modern fighting armaments such as tanks and fighter planes are COMPLETELY dependent upon the supply chain that provides them fuel and maintenence. In a conventional war, with a delineated battle-front, the military can protect these supply chains by keeping them behind the battle front.

However, in a situation where the military is forced to police a distributed country (Iraq anybody?), these supply chains are exposed. The oponents of some future tyranical government could attempt to even-out the battlefield by knocking out these supply chains. Then it becomes a battle of men with rifles, which the U.S. population has many of. Not to mention that not every soldier would be willing to kill citizens of their own country.

I'm certainly not interested in this happening, but I wouldn't dismiss the capability of armed citizens to fight a tyranical government as "fantasy".

First off, about half the army will likely defect. Civilian targets? Marshall law? Blow up towns?

Second, you have guns so when the Nazis march into your town to start yanking you out of your houses, you're fuckin' armed. It worked for Hitler, it won't work here; Hitler collected up all the guns, if we have them all still then when the gestapo wants to take us they can take us through the bullet spray.

I'd say more than half, and that would be because there would be violence, there would be shots fired. When no shots are fired, when no opposition is presented, that's when the government's power is easy and complete. With no guns, we have next to zero chance of enacting a takeover. It's only anti-American and anti-Military folks who argue with a straight face that the guns won't help and the army would just employ bigger guns and armor.

The military is our brothers and sisters, our sons and daughters, our fathers and mothers -- they do not want to shoot a single US citizen. Most will follow orders so long as they do not include shooting and harming US citizens, and that's exactly why we need the guns; more than likely only a few minor incidents would be needed, because the aftermath would further ignite public outcry and also dampen military resolve to use weaponry on its own citizens.

Individual citizens armed with handguns and rifles and shotguns are going to go up against government forces, who have artillery, cruise missiles, and attack helicopters?

it seemed to work pretty well for the Vietnamese, the Iraqis, the Mujaheddin. The entire point of guerrilla warfare is that it almost completely eliminates the military advantage that large standing forces have. Artillery and other massive weapons are only useful against other standing militaries. Cruise missiles are only useful against infrastructure and other persistent targets. Attack helicopters are no use at picking one soldier out of a crowd of civilians. Aircraft carriers are useless against someone poisoning your barracks' food supply. ICBMs don't frighten someone who lives 2 miles from your own military base. Stealth fighters can't protect you from roadside bombs.

Of course, your argument is pointless anyways. As the decision states, whether resistance is a practical option in the 21st century has no bearing on whether it is a protected right. You don't say that the freedom of speech is no longer protected just because Rupert Murdoch can easily speak louder than any protester, you don't say that the fourth amendment is no longer valid since the police can easily find out tons of information about you without entering your home. I don't think there's any risk that the government will want to quarter soldiers in private homes to save some money, that doesn't mean the constitutional prohibition against it ceases to be the law of the land.

I think you do miss the point. Allowing the entire citizenry to own guns is like the getting involved in a cold war. It establishes an uneasy armed truce between the citizens and the leading class (politicians), with the ideal situation being that leaders do not take away freedoms, and in turn, the citizens don't take their lives. Sort of like Mutually Assured Destruction, only with the weight placed much more on the ruling class, because they are few, and the mob is legion. I think many of the founding fathers understood this, just like most of the ruling class understands this today, if somewhat unconsciously.

Sure, it's true... A single hunting rifle will be, and always has been utterly ineffective against an army. Still, I think people underestimate the power a few small chunks of lead could have. Devices which effectively poke holes in game animals will continue to be effective at poking holes in (much more frail) humans. I.E. You can hide some of the politicians all of the time, but you can't hide all of the politicians all of the time. This explains why our rights are slowly eroding. It makes the changes less tangible, less dramatic... Then the doublespeak begins.

The "black helicopter" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. "Gun rights" conservatives are a subset of conservatives. The two overlap, but they are not the same. If you actually knew any "black helicopter" conservatives, you would know that they have been predicting this crap for years and they hold no allegiance to Bush or the police state. They believed Reagan was evil, for crying out loud--Look up REX-84, which we seem to be currently implementing (tongue in cheek, sorta.)

What happened to all those militias in the 1990's? I'll tell you what happened, they got infiltrated by the FBI and the groups basically realized they were ineffectual, became demoralized and disbanded. Whether or not you agree with them, this sort of proves that a vigilant and motivated minority of the population stands no chance against the state. So while Democrats may laugh at the poor stupid rednecks, it's a kind of Pyrrhic victory because their "defeat" came about because their worst fear was realized, the government became an overpowering oppressive state. Where are these people today? They were probably Ron Paul supporters, not Bush supporters. For the most part they don't vote because they think the whole thing is rigged anyway.

Also, while an armed populace that's sufficiently pissed off to rebel may indeed be the final option in the case of governmental tyranny, it's not a solution anyone should hope for. Civil wars are ugly, ugly things, and we should try every possible legal solution before resorting to blood in the streets.

Let's back down from the larger and, at this point in time, less likely picture of black helicopters and civil wars. Let's look at what this means for most people:

If you live in DC (and other, similarly restrictive cities soon) you can own a handgun for self-protection and you don't have to have a trigger lock, disassembled or in another manner to make it totally useless. And if someone breaks into your house, you can blow his shit away and not have to worry about being 1) unable to defend your family or 2) arrested alongside the burglar for defending your family.

Because as anyone who has ever lived in a large city knows the main form of crime is armed assailants killing innocent grandmothers in their bedrooms...

It's not as if violence between family members and gang violence accounts for the majority of violent crime. This is a very good thing, because if guns were inserted into relationships where people who know each other or are members of violent gangs are trying to hurt each other, one might expect the rate of homicides to go up...

Your one point goes against the overwhelming evidence that when you ban firearms, or any form of weapon you can carry on you person to defend yourself, violent crime goes up. Britain anyone? Home invasions while the family/owner are home is the norm now. Almost all criminals who are interviewed have said that the only thing they fear when robbing a house/person is that they have a gun. Ban the guns, and they have nothing to fear.

Also, while an armed populace that's sufficiently pissed off to rebel may indeed be the final option in the case of governmental tyranny, it's not a solution anyone should hope for. Civil wars are ugly, ugly things, and we should try every possible legal solution before resorting to blood in the streets.

The best deterrents (an armed populace in this case) are the ones which you end up not having to use. Although one should be prepared to shoot a burglar if necessary, it's best if the burglar runs away, and even better if the burglar never breaks into your house in the first place because they think you may have a gun. Similarly, it's better to have the possibility of having to deal with an armed revolt keeps a government's actions in check, rather than have an actual revolt.

One might think that individual rights in the U.S. are encroached upon quite a bit, but just compare it to someplace like the U.K. (where gun rights are essentially non-existent) and you'll notice quite a difference.

I'm pretty sure that the ruling does not protect your right to own assault rifles, hand grenades, military class vehicles, or rocket launchers.

Can you define an "assault rifle?"

This is one of my pet peeves. What is the difference between a hunting rifle and an assault rifle?

Hunting rifles are brown, assault rifles are black. If I am shot, the color of the gun would be the last thing on my mind.

Assault rifles have an upper gas tube. Once again, if I am shot, I would not care.

Assault rifles may have a place to put a bayonett. If I have a gun pointed at me, I would probably not notice a knife on the end.

Assault rifles have a pistol grip. Yup, that would make anybody shot with a hunting rifle feel better that at least there was no pistol grip.

Also, just for the record, let's look at the most popular "assault rifle" out there -- the AR-15. It shoots a.223 cartridge. If I was told that I was going to be shot by a center-fire rifle, and I could choose the cartridge, the.223 would be near the top of the list. The AR-15 was designed mostly to injure (not kill) the enemy. Also, with smaller bullets, you can carry more ammo. The humble 30-06 cartridge (extremely popular for hunting) does a LOT more damage.

The Washington Sniper used a.223 AR-15, and some people lived. If "assault weapons" were illegal, and he chose to use a bolt-action 30-06, there would not have been any survivors.

Basicly, some people want to ban "assault rifles" because they look scary. If we painted them day-glow orange and had pictures of kittens and unicorns on them, they would be OK.

I always understood it to mean that when the torture, wiretapping and disregard of habeas corpus gets bad enough, we are supposed to bear the arms and water the garden of liberty with the blood of tyrants, or something.

Here in Philly, the murder epidemic is bad enough that they're talking about random "stop and search" in an effort to crack down. Since we have an underfunded police department, city courts and prison system I'm not sure any further restrictions would really make a difference anyway. There's too few cops to enforce too many laws, too few courts to handle too many cases, and too little prison space to house too many criminals.

Regardless of the societal problems that lead to the endemic poverty, drug abuse and crime it doesn't seem like more rulemaking will make a difference.

Education is a great idea, however when urban culture sees education as "selling out" and not "keeping it real" education spending is fruitless. We need to stop the idea that education is pointless and that all you need to do is rap or play a sport.

Not necessarily a good option. While I'm sure there are areas that could use more police protection, there are already a good amount where additional police would simply result in more speeding tickets(because they're easy).

No, my solution would be to legalize, regulate, and tax the currently illegal drugs. Killing the illegal drug trade would drop our violence levels to near european levels overnight.

Interestingly enough, I am quite liberal and used to be very much for gun control. The past eight years of torture, wiretapping, and suspension of Habeas Corpus made me realize that the 2nd amendment is not just an issue of rednecks and their right to hunt.

I feel the Bush administration shows what can happen when the gov't no longer regards the people it serves. Governments need to fear their citizens, even if only a little bit. An armed populace may be the ultimate check and balance.

The biggest, most powerful police force in the world can't save you if they aren't there when you get assaulted, which by definition, they almost never are. All they can do after the fact is comfort your family, collect evidence, and try to find the perp. Small comfort.

The vast majority of legal gun owners (proper license, clean background, etc) in the US commits a disproportionally lower percentage of the violent crime. You have less to fear from them than the rest of society. Violent, armed criminals almost never own guns in compliance with the law, and so further restrictions won't help stop them from shooting you... but more restrictions will prevent you from defending yourself against them.

We're not in wartime. There has been no legal declaration of war, and hence no legal use of wartime powers. Our troops are conducting operations under the orders of the Commander in Chief, not because a war was declared.

Your statements seem to imply that there is nothing wrong with torturing our enemies, and I, like many, many U.S. citizens, have an extreme problem with that. We are supposed to be better than our enemies. We are supposed to uphold the ideals of our Consitution. How can we talk about liberty, while we deny it to others? How can we expect countries to follow our example, become "free" and "democracies", when our example is kidnapping and torture?

I want to remind you here of the stance we took when we decided to rebel against England:

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created equal...

U.S. citizens are not more equal. If we do not apply the ideals of our Constitution to everyone then it means nothing.

The dissenting argument is that these evils are being perpetrated to protect us. The president claims he has to stomp all over our civil liberties, tap our phones, read our mail, torture our enemies, and dispose of due process to save American lives. I'll leave you with another quote, by Patrick Henry:

Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?

Umm, didn't we declare war in WWII? Read my post. We have not declared war, so there is no legal justification for the president to invoke wartime powers. There is no legal justification for his circumvention of the Constitution. The government can legally assume extraordinary powers in time of war, but it takes a declaration of war to do it.

Bush himself has used the "not at war" tactic to justify circumventing the Geneva Conventions, claiming our prisoners are not POWs but "enemy combatants." This despite the fact that

...the 1958 ICRC commentary on the Fourth Geneva Convention: Every person in enemy hands must be either a prisoner of war and, as such, be covered by the Third Convention; or a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention. Furthermore, "There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law."

Seems we are at war when it is convenient, and not when it is inconvenient.

FDR and Truman were wartime presidents. We declared war in WWII.

"Police action" was invented to circumvent the Senate. It was invented to take advantage of the ambiguity in Article 2 of the Constitution, which simply states that the president shall act as Commander in Chief. Presidents use this to order troops to war, without having to get the Senate to actually declare war.

Yes, war is hell. But we are better at killing our enemies than they are at killing us. That does not mean we should debase ourselves to use their tactics, tactics which we have agreed are illegal when we signed the Geneva Conventions. It certainly does not mean we should willingly sacrifice our core values because they are inconvenient. If we do that, we have already lost, because that is exactly what the enemy wants.

Some of us, who favor gun control, do not have any problem whatsoever with this decision. It seems like a perfectly reasonable view of the constitution as written. Trying to say otherwise is intellectually dishonest.

What I question is the constitution itself: Is the right to bear arms really a key element to protest against excessive government control? India didn't gain their independence through guns. Today, we don't need them.

On the other hand, the right of privacy, not clearly stated in the American constitution, is necessary, and should be added. There was no need for it in the 1800s, if just because it was impossible to violate with their technology. It was pretty easy to keep the content of your conversations private: don't talk near a government official. Today, you can be snooped on alone in your home, over a phone, or on the internet. Technology has created a new issue, that deserves a constitutional amendment. Some European countries with constitutions that came after the telephone do cover the right of privacy explicitly. To become a freer country, America must follow their lead.

The rights of individuals do not stem from the Constitution. The Constitution (well, Bill of Rights) specifically lists some rights that are protected, and shall not be infringed, to limit the powers of the government.

If owning a gun made sense in 1776, well, that's great. Let's just leave it in there and not ban it.

If there are new protections which we must add, to further limit the government, such as the protection of privacy (unreasonable search and seizure?), perhaps we need a new amendment.

Read up on the Deacons for Defense, armed blacks, mostly WW II and Korean War veterans, who used their right to keep and bear arms to stare down corrupt state and local governments which were run by the KKK.

This was 40 years ago.

Now tell me how much more enlightened we are today and tell me how unnecessary the 2nd amendment is.

I must disagree. Today is exactly when we need them. Now, please read on before you start flaming...

As affirmed by this decision, part of the reason the 2nd Amendment exists is

"premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)."

Note that last part, the "depredations of a tyrannical government". The 2nd exists to ensure that, should the government devolve into a tyranny, the citizens will possess the means to overthow it, just as the founding fathers overthrew theirs.

The people who wrote the first ten Amendments were not naive and idealistic. They knew very well that power corrupts, so they put in a safety valve. Should the system of checks and balances fail the citizens would retain the power to put it back.

The Executive Branch of the U.S. government has been consolidating power unto itself for a long time. We have "police actions" and "operations" which, while clearly acts of war, have not been declared as such. Instead the president has decided that, as Commander in Chief, he does not need the Senate's approval. We have a degradation of the 1st Amendment, with warrantless wiretaps. The 5th is gone. If you refuse to incriminate yourself you can be declared a terrorist and shipped off to Gitmo to be tortured.

We are all familiar with the list.

If the current trend continues, if presidents continue to subvert the Constitution, gathering more and more power unto themselves while destroying the system of checks and balances, we are going to need those guns. Yes, we all pray that it is never necessary, but we certainly can't preach about how wonderful our "rights" are if we are not prepared to do what is necessary to keep them.

Perhaps you should re-evaluate what you question. The US Constitution doesn't grant or create any rights. That was true before there was a Bill of Rights, and is no less true afterward. It merely recognizes them. That's a great distinction. We believe that people have certain inalienable rights. And our Constitution recognizes those. And per the 9th Amendment, its specific recognition of a very small subset of our rights does not imply that we do not have more. Notwithstanding that the Supremes historically don't like the 9th Amendment and would prefer to find asinine things like 'penumbras' of other rights.

We the people are sovereign, we hold all power, and we have all rights. My rights don't come from a piece of paper, a court, or Congress, or my neighbors.

Regarding the right to keep and bear arms: there are those, such as I, who would argue that a free person has that right, regardless of the existence of the 2nd amendment. An unfree person does not have that right. A free person has a right to the means necessary to protect his or or liberty, life and property from all enemies, foreign or domestic. The question is not whether we have the right. The question is to what extent can that right be regulated, and that is a good question. And now, the Supreme Court has finally set us on the path of answering THAT question, not debating over whether we have a fundamental right or not.

To the point of not needing guns: we need arms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. I'm not saying that we need to overthrow our government now or at any foreseeable time, or even that we could. I am saying that as free people we have the right to the means to do so, even if the need seems implausibly remote, and a good way to continue to ensure that implausibility is to continue to let free people arm themselves. A people stripped of their fundamental right to protect their liberty, by force of arms if necessary, can only be stripped of more rights. The fact that we retain the right to arms, that we remain vigilant and cognizant of our fundamental rights as free people, is a strong indicator that we retain our other equally important rights.

Nowhere did the Court say that there was an unlimited right to bear arms. They specifically said:

"From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose."

Perhaps one of the most likely to be overlooked lines comes at the end of page 57, where Scalia writes: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

Moreover, he then continues to write: "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep an carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.' We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons'."

Further, interestingly, at page 64, Scalia appears to leave open the possibility for attaching summary judgment offenses to the discharge and/or loading of firearms, so long as those penalties are minor.

In any case, the meat and bones of the judgment appears to be this, as stated at pages 58 and 60: The weapons protected by the Second Amendment are those that 'were in common use at the time'. However, this appears to extend to 'classes' of weapons, rather than specific designs (for example, semi-automatic and automatic firearms were not around until the middle of the 19th century, and would therefore certainly not have been 'in common use at the time' and would likely be prohibited), so essentially limits the second amendment to pistols and rifles; I am unsure how this would apply to things like submachine guns, assault rifles, and sniper rifles which likely did not even exist as 'classes' at the time; they don't really say, except to say that "It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service -M-16s and the like- may be banned..." which does imply in fact that assault rifles as a class do not survive the 'in common use' test.

Fairly interestingly is the Court's statement at page 59, that "The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of 'arms' that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose." This interestingly folds back into its prior decision in Kennedy v. Louisiana of earlier this week that 'what the public thinks' is becoming a relevant constitutional test. I'm not sure, and they don't elaborate, on how this would come into conflict with the 'in common use' test. For example, imagine the American public decided that automatic grenade launchers were the best method of hunting- would they then also be allowed? If that is not true, I'm not really sure what Scalia's purpose for pointing out that Americans like handguns happens to be. It seems like he's saying that weapons which are overwhelmingly used for a lawful purpose are to be given more legal defense than those which are not.

At page 61, the court overturns the requirement that 'firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times'; as this apparently invalidates their core lawful purpose, it is unconstitutional. However, the Court appears to say, that were a self-defense exception included it would be acceptable. How this would work is sort of confusing. The District's statute says, essentially, that every handgun should be kept unloaded and dissassembled or trigger locked unless the firearm is kept at a place of business or being used for lawful recreational purposes. It is unclear exactly what self-defense exemption the Court would prefer; i.e., whether such an exemption would require that firearms be able to be kept loaded and ready to fi

Gun education used to be the norm in America - just about every kid had a dad who owned one, knew how to use it, and knew not to touch it. Ignorance breeds fear and is particularly dangerous with guns. Growing up, I knew NOT to play with them, mess around with them, and that they had a handful of particular uses. The more kids that know that, the fewer accidents we have.

I agree, and just want to note that while the decision itself may make gun control less of an issue for the upcoming election, the closeness of the vote on such a salient case will certainly make SCOTUS appointments much more of an issue.

Your equations aren't necessarily true. The VAST majority of guns in the US are NOT used in crimes, and the vast majority of gun owners aren't criminals. States with conceal-carry laws have substantially reduced crime rates as well.

States can still regulate firearms, as long as they don't infringe upon the second amendment. Individual rights, in this case, trump state rights.

So the right to have an abortion is bullshit whereas the right to own a gun is God-given. Nice personal freedoms, there. Way to go with your own intellectual honesty.

What the hell is with the current collection of issues in the present political divide, anyway? How is "the right to own a gun" on the same team as "ban abortions and gay marriage"? This doesn't make any sense to me.

How is "the right to own a gun" on the same team as "ban abortions and gay marriage"? This doesn't make any sense to me.

You and me both. It makes it hard to pick a party affiliation, that's for sure. If the reds ever rid themselves of the religious zealots, the blues sure would have to step up in a big way. Wouldn't it be great?

Thank goodness. Gun control laws only keep the honest person honest and defenseless.
Law abiding citizens will obey the law and revoke ownership of guns. Criminals on the other hand already have a mind to break the law, and having a law against guns won't stop them for a second.

So you're saying criminals would think "Geez, it doesn't seem fair for me to use this Glock to rob the store when the clerk probably doesn't have a gun. I'll use the switchblade instead; that oughta level the playing field."

Hrm. It seems the DC gun ban would have reduced gun crime if criminals were truly that altruistic.

I live in a country with strict gun control. Its surprising how often we manage to not get robbed by anyone with a gun.

Do we have shootings? Yes, however, there is quite a long way between shootings and usually its the police doing the shooting. Do people get robbed? Yes of course they do, but strangely seldom with a gun - usually its a knife being wielded. The fear surrounding a gunless society is absolutely bonkers.

While I agree in principle with the decision, the argument that gun ownership restriction make the public less safe is ridiculous. It just isn't really supported by the numbers [statemaster.com]. Which show that aside from the few exceptions, in general states with more liberal gun ownership laws tend to have a significantly higher rate of gun deaths.
But all of this is completely besides the point because the right to own a gun is stated clearly in the bill of rights and that should be enough. At least of the courage to stand by that fact and not make disingenuous arguments about how it's actually better for society on some vague level.

It has long amazed me how anyone could manage to construe the subordinate clause "A well regulated militia being necessary to a free state," as anything other than an explanation as to why the amendment was being included in the first place. It is clear that this clause is an introduction to the rest of the amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." It's an even stronger prohibition on action than the First Amendment's "Congress shall make no law..."

Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a
firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for
traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
Pp. 2-53.
(a) The Amendment's prefatory clause announces a purpose, but
does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative
clause. The operative clause's text and history demonstrate that it
connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2-22....

It's dead on.

On a related note, why don't new sites ever link to the actual decision? It makes no sense.

Read the opinion; there are limits to those arms protected by the 2nd Amendment. Here is an excerpt from Scalia's majority opinion:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century
are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First
Amendment protects modern forms of communications,
e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844,
849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern
forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27,
35â"36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima
facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms,
even those that were not in existence at the time of the
founding.

Elsewhere, he writes:

We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
"in common use at the time." 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of "dangerous and unusual
weapons." [...]
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military serviceâ"M-16 rifles and the likeâ"may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment's ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and
tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

Breyer's dissent notes a logical problem with the majority opinion:

Nor is it at all clear to me how the majority decides
which loaded "arms" a homeowner may keep. The majority
says that that Amendment protects those weapons
"typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful
purposes." Ante, at 53. This definition conveniently excludes
machineguns, but permits handguns, which the
majority describes as "the most popular weapon chosen by
Americans for self-defense in the home." Ante, at 57; see
also ante, at 54â"55. But what sense does this approach
make? According to the majority's reasoning, if Congress
and the States lift restrictions on the possession and use of
machineguns, and people buy machineguns to protect
their homes, the Court will have to reverse course and find
that the Second Amendment does, in fact, protect the
individual self-defense-related right to possess a machinegun.
On the majority's reasoning, if tomorrow someone
invents a particularly useful, highly dangerous selfdefense
weapon, Congress and the States had better ban it
immediately, for once it becomes popular Congress will no
longer possess the constitutional authority to do so. In
essence, the majority determines what regulations are
permissible by looking to see what existing regulations
permit. There is no basis for believing that the Framers
intended such circular reasoning.

Note also that the phrase "well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" was also a throw back to the Declaration of Independence, wherin it states that it is the people's duty to reinstitute a free state if the government becomes oppressive to the ideals under which the free state was originally created.

The individuals who are going around killing people with hand guns can't get a permit for a gun in the first place. These individuals buy their hand guns on underground black markets; markets that will exist whether hand gun possession is legal or not.

What's the point?

The real intention of the 2nd amendment is to allow citizens to revolt (or at least threaten to). And that is a right that I savor.

Do you really think a handgun would be any use whatsoever against the armour-plated, tank driving army, should the US populace ever get riled up enough for open revolt?

If the purpose of the second amendment is to allow for armed revolt against an oppressive government, it is currently outdated and ineffective. Given the weapons available to the general public right now, no such armed revolt could ever succeed.

Really? Ask the marines and soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're generally not fighting against an enemy with equivalent arms or training, yet the insurgency has done a very good job keeping the government unstable, and may well force the US (and allies) out. I would argue that while such weapons are not effective in a fair fight, rebellions tend not to fight fair.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."
He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Apparently Stevens needs to learn how to read. Of course the framers wanted to reserve the tools for revolution to the people.

here [latimes.com]here [nytimes.com]here [cnn.com]here [foxnews.com] (oops, my bad;)here [google.com]here [reuters.com]here [washingtonpost.com]or how about one from a city that is directly impacted by the decision, like here? [chicagotribune.com]

Mayor Daley calls Supreme Court's gun-ban reversal 'a very frightening decision'High court strikes down Washington D.C. law in ruling that could have Chicago implicationsAn angry Mayor Richard Daley on Thursday called the Supreme Court's overturning of the Washington D.C. gun ban "a very frightening decision" and vowed to fight vigorously any challenges to Chicago's ban.

The mayor, speaking at a Navy Pier event, said he was sure mayors nationwide, who carry the burden of keeping cities safe, will be outraged by the decision.

Chicago's handgun ban, which has lasted for more than a quarter-century, came under threat earlier in the day when the Supreme Court decided that Washington D.C.'s law against handgun ownership is unconstitutional.

In a 5-4 decision, the high court determined that Americans have the right to own guns for self-defense as well as hunting. The decision, which had been expected, is a win for gun-rights advocates and provides a better definition of the rights of Americans to own firearms.

Illinois gun-rights activists have said they expect to mount a quick legal challenge to the Chicago Weapons Ordinance.

Other city officials said they felt confidant that challenge would fail.

As someone who tries to avoid RTFAs, I was annoyed that the summary dodn't even HINT at what the actual decision was, obviously to drive traffic to the submitter's site.

I'm disappointed in you, timothy. I'm sure there were a lot more submissions than this one. Since this is Thursday, I hereby nominate you as "Aurthur Dent" (Monday is my Dent Day).

Why do I have to <p> on my paragraphs when I've selected "plain old text"??

I am pretty neutral on the subject, but I can attest to the fact that the gun ban was not working in DC. I lived in the district for a while, and my girlfriend had a gun shoved in her face by a 14 year old for her purse. I don't think he cared about the gun ban.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

The term "people" is also used elsewhere in the US Constitution:

Article I, Section 2.

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the PEOPLE of the several States...

Amendment 1.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the PEOPLE peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment 4.

The right of the PEOPLE to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment 9.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the PEOPLE.

Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the PEOPLE.

Amendment 17.

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the PEOPLE thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the PEOPLE fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Anyone having trouble understanding what the word "people" was understood to mean by the writers of the US Constitution, Bill Of Rights, and the Seventeenth Amendment?

The best way to control crime is to promote responsible gun ownership. For those cities with high violent crime rates, if a criminal had reason to suspect many if not most were packing concealed iron, he'd be a lot less likely to commit a crime. And if he did, well...

Besides, everyone knows that if you make laws prohibiting gun ownership, that only affects law-abiding citizens. The criminals always manages to have guns anyway, thus leaving the law-abider at a severe disadvantage.

Responsible Gun Ownership is the way to go, and will result in less crime, lessen the need for police (which themselves figure into the crime component), and fix a host of other ills.

Many liberals will disagree with me, but I have yet to see a sound counter-argument. And no, I am NOT a conservative -- I am a Libertarian.

No matter what side of this issue you are on, the dissenting opinions are worth a careful read. They highlight and document in detail the errors made in the Majority decision, the most blatant of which being a complete misquote of a supreme court precedent used to support their opinion:

Majority, page 47: "We (the supreme court, in 1876, in United States v. Cruikshank) describe the right protected by the Second Amendment as 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose'."

The actual precedent set in 1876 was in fact the/exact opposite/:

Stevens, J., Dissent, page 39: "The Court wrote, as to counts 2 and 10 of respondents' indictment: 'The right there specified (in the indictment that they were overturning) is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" This is NOT (emphasis added) a right granted by the Constitution.'... 'This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the NATIONAL (emphasis added) government.'"

Justice Stevens continues: "The Cruikshank Court explained that the defective indictment contained such language, but the court did not itself describe the right, or endorse the indictment's description of the right."

There are many other such contradictions in the ruling that merit serious reading. No matter what side of the fence you are on, it seems this ruling is based on very shaky grounds and dubious interpretations of precedents.

The accusations that one should expect more "intellectual honesty from Supreme Court judges", attacking the dissenters are completely unfounded and could only have come from someone who didn't bother to read their well-referenced and well-argued opinions.

"Governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed."
--Thomas Jefferson: Declaration of Independence, 1776. ME 1:29, Papers 1:429

In case you don't see the connection, I'll spell it out: "Oh judge, what good are your laws?" They represent the consensus of the governed. The bad man will not follow them but the government will enforce them. This will always be true.

The good man absolutely does need laws, as the laws spell out what the consensus is, and as long as the rule of law exists, where laws are applied equally and fairly to all the governed, then the good man will accept them if they are acceptable, and will work through legitimate channels if they must be changed.

Or would it make sense to say, "Oh Grocery Store, what good are your prices? The shoplifter will not follow them, and the good shopper does not read them." -- no, of course not.

On the other hand, even if the mugger didn't think you had a gun, he may shoot you just to be safe. Then take your wallet and run.

If the mugger is armed, you're screwed either way. (Assuming he's a decent shot.) But if you're armed, (A) you might be able to frighten off the attacker, even if he were armed (cuz he knows he's a bad shot), or (B) you might take the bastard down, saving yourself, or (C) you might take the bastard with you, even if he got ya.

So explain to me again why unarmed is better?

Now, to weaken my argument: a gun is an awful responsibility. One wild round or accidental discharge and you may have killed an innocent bystander. So, for a lot of people, that's too much of a risk. Me, for instance. I may not have any compunction about defending myself with lethal force, if I could assure myself to nearly 100% certainty that only my attacker and possibly myself will suffer. But bullets don't stop when you miss your target, and that's why I won't risk 'em.

That's just me, though. YMMV. FWIW, I think the Supremes got it right.

Not true. Even at 'gun shows' any firearm purchases *require* the same federal background check as if you purchased from a store. The 'gun show loophole' simply does not exist....you can not make an end run around state and federal laws by buying a firearm from a gun show.

Depending on the state, you're not quite correct. In MOST states (exceptions are California for sure, and maybe 1 or 2 others that I'm not aware of), a sale between private individuals does not require any Federal NICS check. So I can take one of my rifles to a gun show, tote it around with a "For Sale" sticker on it, and if someone wants to buy it they can without background check.

DEALERS at Gun Shows and flea markets have to do the standard background checks, but you don't have to be a dealer to sell a gun. There's a hazy grey area on the volume you need to be moving before you're considered to be "engaging in the business of selling firearms" and hence in need of a dealer's license.

Not saying that I have a problem with any of this (uncheck private sales are fine by me), just saying that not "every" sale at a gun show needs a NICS check.

That is the decision of the courts. That is how they chose to interpret the constitution. As best I know, the court did not travel back in time to ask the writers of the constitution to clarify the message they were trying to convey when they wrote it.

Well, consider reading the Federalist Papers on the Bill of Rights. It tells you exactly what the writers of the Constitution thought about the issue, since the Federalist Papers were written by writers of the Constitution.

I note a single example:

What is the militia? The militia is the whole body of the people, except for certain government officials.